On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:33:00PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Why exactly are you objecting that the compiler produces useful
> intermediate dumps, understandable my machine and human?
While still not convinced we need this, if we add it, you are still
printing a lot of stuff that is useless
Hi!
I'm highly annoyed that we're wasting a lot of time arguing about such a
minor item.
On Mon, 27 May 2019 21:29:13 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:05:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > The arrays are emitted in the *.omplower dump, so I think it is much
> > > b
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:05:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > The arrays are emitted in the *.omplower dump, so I think it is much better
> > to scan-tree-dump their content
>
> That's not feasible in the general case.
Why? The arrays have easily parseable names (.omp_data_kinds.N), then
Hi!
On Mon, 27 May 2019 18:51:22 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 06:46:19PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > To establish some suitable testsuite coverage for a task that I'm working
> > on, I need to do 'scan-tree-dump' of 'lower_omp_target' mapping kinds.
> > Is the attac
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 06:46:19PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> To establish some suitable testsuite coverage for a task that I'm working
> on, I need to do 'scan-tree-dump' of 'lower_omp_target' mapping kinds.
> Is the attached OK?
>
> Any suggestions about whether/how to restrict the (effecti
